Nikon D800: The best sensor analyzed on DxOMark!

The Nikon D800: A full-frame sensor with no weak points

The two Nikon full-frame cameras, the D800 and the D4, occupy the top two places in the full-frame category. Simple and efficient. Still, be careful: as ever, in this review we are discussing only the D800’s RAW-image-based sensor results. We will follow up with DxOMark results for compatible lenses for this camera whose small pixel size promises to be very challenging.

Returning to the sensor, the D800’s Overall score is the best that has ever been achieved, and its use case scores are equally impressive:

Portrait: 25.3 bits (tied for 3rd, best full-frame score, very close to the best medium-format scores)

The Portrait score represents the sensor’s capacity to furnish vivid, varied, and accurate colors under good lighting conditions (i.e., studio).

The Nikon D4 had already obtained very interesting results. Here the D800 comes close to the quality of the best medium-format sensors: the IQ 180 (26.5 bits) and the P65 Plus (26 bits) are ahead, while the D800 achieves the same score as the P40 Plus. Even if its resolution is two times smaller than the medium format with the best resolution so far (the IQ180 and its 81 Mpix), the Nikon D800 and its 36 Mpix is a serious contender.

We still need to see how good the resolution and other optical qualities are for Nikon lenses when mounted for the first time on this small-pixel (4.8 µm) full-frame camera. We will also need to verify the performance of the best medium-format lenses on the best medium-format cameras. In short, the Nikon D800 has not told us everything about how well it will do in terms of studio photography, but we can say that its sensor performance is solid in this regard.

Landscape: 14.4 EV (1st)

Here again, the D800 achieves the best score ever measured. The APS-C sensors of the Pentax K5 and the Nikon D7000 are surpassed by around 0.3 and 0.5 stop, respectively. No need to hesitate taking high-contrast photos with the Nikon D800!

Sport: 2853 (3rd) — a pleasant surprise

The Sport score (alias Low-Light ISO score) lets you know how far you can go with regard to ISO without compromising image quality. Up until now, the sensors with the best resolution couldn’t compare their low-light performances with those of the best sensors in this category (the Nikon D3s and of course the D4). Here the D800’s sensor performance matches that of the D4’s!

All this said, it’s useful to recall these 2 important points:

As with all DxOMark scores, we take into account only image quality. It does not address such other important criteria as image signal processing, mechanical robustness, ease of use, flexibility.

Nikon D800 vs Nikon D4

Taking two different approaches, Nikon produced two beautiful full-frame cameras this year (see our comparison of their specifications here). In terms of sensor results, the D800 takes the lead. The 6-point gap is largely explained by the differences in measurements at low ISO.

The normalized SNR curves are very close, and in terms of color sensitivity, the Nikon D800 is slightly superior for low ISO:

Nikon D800 vs Nikon D4: SNR comparison (print mode)

Nikon D800 vs Nikon D4: Color sensitivity comparison (print mode)

The biggest difference shows up in the dynamic range scores:

Nikon D800 vs Nikon D4: Dynamic range comparison (print mode)

In every instance in which the Nikon D4 reaches its ceiling for dynamic range for between ISO 100 and ISO 800, the Nikon D800 provides ever more EV at each decrease in sensitivity to achieve a maximum of 14.33 EV (normalized measurement), which corresponds to 13.24 EV per pixel. This sensor’s 14 bits of dynamic range are far from useless. (Of course, we remind you that in screen mode — unnormalized, as is the case for 100% screen view, for example — the Nikon D4 comes out ahead, and by quite a large margin — with the SNR curves showing a difference of nearly 1.5 stops.)

Nikon D800 vs Pentax K5 vs Nikon D7000

With a nearly identical pixel pitch (4.7µm) and very close measurement results (in screen mode), be they for SNR, DR, or color sensitivity — those who predicted that the D800 would achieve pixel quality close to that of the Nikon D7000 and the Pentax K5 were not wrong. (If we wanted to get a little nit-picky, however, we might be tempted to point out that there has been no significant progress with respect to pixel quality since the D7000 and the K5 first appeared back in 2010….)

The Nikon D800, a less-expensive medium-format camera?

Several comparisons are available between this new full-frame camera and medium-format cameras:

All these comparisons head in the same direction: the D800’s sensor is comparable to the best medium-format sensor, and in fact does even better — much better — as ISO increases.

Of course, sensor scores don’t tell the whole story. For example, medium-format cameras will still offer a nicer depth of field and a smoother bokeh. We also still need to see how the best lenses behave on these different types of cameras.

Nikon D800 vs Canon EOS 5D Mark II (and soon the 5D Mark III)

Just a quick comparison between the D800 and the 5D Mark II (while we wait for the results of the Canon EOS 5D Mark III) to see how the Nikon D800 ranks with respect to this very good but older Canon EOS 5D Mark II sensor.

The D800 is superior in every respect:

16 points more for Overall score

1.6 bits more for Color Sensitivity (Portrait)

More than 2 stops’ difference for Dynamic Range (Landscape)

Around 2/3 stop better for Low-Light ISO (Sport)

Looking at the details more closely, the Nikon D800 succeeds in providing the same SNR in screen mode despite a much lower pixel pitch (4.7 µm for the D800 vs. 6.4 µm for the 5D Mark II)!

Nikon D800 vs Canon EOS 5D Mark II: SNR Comparison (screen mode)

To be continued…

Even though the D800’s sensor results are exceptional, we are looking forward to measuring the best Nikon lenses on it, and also to being able to compare it with the new Canon EOS 5D Mark III!

Further readings for the Nikon D800 Review

To provide photographers with a broader perspective about mobiles, lenses and cameras, here are links to articles, reviews, and analyses of photographic equipment produced by DxOMark, renown websites, magazines or blogs.

Comments

D800 as Super DX?

may have posted this in the wrong place... Just discovered DXO- WOW, whata great service you guys provide us camera geeks!

My thoughts, correct me if i'm wrong; The D800 in-camera crop leaves the remaining 16 mp at the same density as the 36 mp right?

Doesn't this actually make the camera also a High Density DX camera?

More to the point is that I've found my 17-55 f2.8 DX lens including the 18-300 Nikon f3.5 has AMAZING sharpness that you can see from the back of the camera. You're jaw will drop when you zoom in!

What do you say to a review of at least the Nikkor DX lens on the D800? The 2.8 Nikkor DX lens should be sharp anyway so, just to see if I'm Looney or not, test just one, the 18-300 and see what you see.

So far as I've seen, almost every lens scores higher on the D800 as oppose to other Nikon cameras. So, What do you say DXO? Up for even more work???

First replies for this comment

Re: D800 as Super DX?

Unfortunately, no. 36 MP is the total number of pixels in a full sensor exposure on a D800. If you crop, whether in post or in-camera via DX mode, you're deleting pixels. The pixel density of the D800 is actually slightly less than the D7000 (even in FX mode), and significantly less than the 24 MP DX D7100, but this doesn't really speak to IQ. Pixel density is nothing more than number of pixels divided by physical size of the sensor. If it were possible to measure IQ based on number of pixels or pixel density, then the D800 would be 2 to 3 times better than the D4, which it clearly is not!

But back to the point, the main difference in cropping a full frame exposure (assuming you used an FX lens) is that you can choose exactly how much to crop whereas in DX mode you're maxed out at 16 MP, which gives you an image that is a close equivalent, as it's been reported by many, to that of a D7000 in both size and various measures of image quality (and also very similar pixel densities). I have a D7100 and love it and also a D800. I seem to be in rarefied air when I say I'm thrilled with the DX mode (and 1.2 crop mode). 16 MP is PLENTY! And if you get the MB-D12 grip and put in either the D4 battery or AA's you can get 6 FPS in cropped modes. You can also try the bracketing trick from here http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51004727 to get 6 FPS without a grip! The difference between 4 and 6-7 FPS is huge and makes up for some of the ground this camera gives up to the D4. It doesn't turn it into a D4, of course, but it makes the D800 even more versatile than most people give it credit for, especially if you use the right glass. And this is the right place to find out what that glass should be!

Hmmmm

I'm curious why DxOMark lists the D800 as "semi-pro" and the 5D Mark III as "Professional", they even called the 5d Canon's "Flagship" in their review(?) Am I mistaken, or are these two cameras in the same class?

Best camera sensor ever, but no lenses tested after almost a year?

Dxo rates the D800/D800E higher than any other camera sensor. You would think they would be interested to see how well various lenses perform with it. It's now been almost a year since the camera's been released and, to date, they have tested only one lens with it; and the lens they chose to test? A cheap Tamron.Please, let's see some tests with the kinds of lenses a Nikon D800 user is likely to own. Maybe even a Nikon lens... Start with a few decent primes, like the 16mm, 24mm, 60mm, 85mm f/1.4 105mm and/or 200mm. Then a few of the decent zooms, like the 12-24mm, 14-24mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm, and/or 200-400mm.Any D800 owner will have one or more of those lenses in their kits.It would be nice to know how my new D800E stacks up against the camera I upgraded from. Just knowing how the sensor alone compares isn't all that useful, since I rarely shoot without a lens on my camera.What do you say?By the way, for those interested in whether the D800E produces moire in the real world: I've shot over 4,000 photos on the D800E, including lot of shots with textiles and architecture, and so far, there's been zero moire.

D4 vs D800

My main Reasons for the D4:1)Speed of focus - I can't use my 85 f/1.4 or 24 f/1.4 on my D3 or on a D800 and have it focus fast enough to get in focus shots of toddlers or other erratically moving things.2)Ethernet port ethernet tethering- I use a Netgear WNCE2001 and Mophie Powerstation Gen 2 which works quite well.D4 Wireless Tethering

First replies for this comment

Re: D4 vs D800

Quote:

<div id="linkdxomark">This a comment for <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Nikon/D800">this page on the website</a></div>My main Reasons for the D4:1)Speed of focus - I can't use my 85 f/1.4 or 24 f/1.4 on my D3 or on a D800 and have it focus fast enough to get in focus shots of toddlers or other erratically moving things.2)Ethernet port ethernet tethering- I use a Netgear WNCE2001 and Mophie Powerstation Gen 2 which works quite well.<a href="http://vigorotaku.blogspot.com/2012/11/d4-wireless-tethering.html">D4 Wireless Tethering</a>

Please tell me you're a pro who works for Parents magazine or some such.We now need a D4 to take snapshots of toddlers? First world problems. LOL

D800 vs D600

I am considering one of these cameras. I have read many reviews but none has given a definitive answer to image enlargement. I intend to print the files at 40X60 to 40X80, with interpolation, of course. It seems, from what I read, that a minimal camera shake, even from the mirror movement might not reveal the extra resolution of the sensor. Besides the array of lenses suited to work with the D800 in order to bring out all of its qualities seems to be rather limited and expensive. Ultimately will the 30% increase in pixel count make such a big difference for the print sizes I'm aiming at?

First replies for this comment

Re: D800 vs D600

The D800 is an exceptional camera in all situations. I use it for everything, including fast action, as well as for live evening performances without flash at iso 6400. Hand held in all situations. No shake troubles at all. And the images look great.As long as you have reasonably disciplined technique, it's not any more 'difficult' to use than other cameras.

That said, the D600's 24MP is a LOT. Just think - the highest resoluton DSLR in the world was 24MP until just a year ago (D3x) - so the D600 will do a fantastic job. And it has a far better sensor than the D3x, it's much faster, has better iso etc....

Nikon D800

The D800/D800E render levels of texture, nuance and detail to your photography that, until now, have been the exclusive domain of the complicated medium-format system. Define every eyelash, every line in tree bark, and every shimmer of light. Savor the exceptional depth in your still images — with the combination of an astounding 36.3 effective megapixel, the world's highest*, and the outstanding performance of NIKKOR lenses, you can. Enlarge them as big as A1 poster-sized prints (59.4 x 84.1 cm/23.4 x 33.1 in.) at 200 dpi, or crop aggressively to reach the composition you desire, all without sacrificing the detail and tonal range of the original. In order to maintain clean, high-resolution images, 14-bit A/D conversion within the sensor and a high signal-to-noise ratio deliver phenomenal images in a diverse array of situations. The image sensor's incredible potential does not stop with photography, either. For cinematographers ready to put their exceptionally sharp NIKKOR lenses into action, the D800/D800E's 36.3 effective megapixel data is efficiently processed for exquisite 1080p broadcast quality video at 30p.

Re: What is the point of D4 then?

D800 price

Here in Singapore they offer the D800 for S$4488 which is 20% above the price in the USA, 2999US$ and lower than the hefty price Europeans have to pay....2900EuroI think the camera should be sold everywhere at the same price. I am now thinking of asking an American friend to buy the camera for me there and bring it over. Maybe I even go for the D800E which is cheaper in the US than here the D800.@impurenrg...I think you got things confused here. The D800 sensor was rated higher than the D700 sensor.

First replies for this comment

Re: D800 price

Well the US price is with no sales tax. The Europe price is with VAT. Vat ranges from 17% - 25% in different EU countries. Crazy! But the VAT 0% price is about 2200 euros in Finland for instance. How does that compare to your price?

D800 Sensor tests vs D700, Canons, and others

Look, it gets pretty ridiculous when people start arguing over what are miniscule issues and not real-world photographer's issues. I, for one, have seen fastastic 20x30" images done with a D3 and I personally can attest to the fantastic image quality of the D7000. Sure I, too, want a D800, but the bottom line is that the quality of the image is in the hands of the photographer whether the sensor is 10mp or 36mp. The greats of photography's past just went out and took their images. They didn't worry about lens comparisons. Anyway, I'm not saying anything new. I'd rather lug a D800 on my neck with a couple of lenses than a much heavier medium format camera with is 5-figure price tag. In my humble opinion, no camera is worth spending 5 figures on. Get a Leica M3, a Mamiya 7, or a 4x5 and you'll do fine for a lot less if the talent is there.

Notwithstanding this, it is great news that Nikon has finally produced a "35mm" size camera that can take its huge range of lenses and which is comparable to medium format quality. Bravo Nikon! Now, please get me my ordered camera!!! :)

D800's crop modes available for RAW files or only JPG?

Following to my first question, I've got another simple question where I see different answers on forums. When using the D800 in DX crop mode, we only MP, not IQ, but can we shoot RAW or the crop modes only apply to JPEG files?

really though...

does it really matter who makes the sensor or the shell or how fast it goes or how many megapixels it has? no. buy a camera, point it at something, and make a great image. there have been times where i got better images out of my D40 than my D90 with half the megapixel count.

Re: D800e?

Re: D800e?

Umm...

While D800 is the undisputed resolution king, somehow the DR results don't sit well with me. Smaller pixels with better DR then larger pixels ? This would be the first time it happens and would bring a niggling question into sharp focus: if Nikon has this fantastic technology enabling a high density, small pixel sized sensor to beat everything else on the planet, why not use the same technology in a lower density, larger sized pixel sensor in their flagship camera? The next D4s perhaps?

First replies for this comment

Re: Umm...

You are absolutely correct in your apprehension to believe the results.The smaller pixels (photosites) do not provide better performance than larger pixels, and that is where the results have to be understood. The score DxO gave for the D800/D800e is not based on what the sensor does, it is based on what you can achieve when downsampling the image to ~25% of its original size. DxO evaluates performance on an 8mp image, therefore just about any camera above 8mp will show better results than an 8mp camera, and certainly better than its predecessor. In the scoring system you also have to understand that DxO awards the score based on the highest achievable performance score - even if the camera only performs to that level at one ISO setting and performs worse at every other setting - see a comparison of D3x and D3s where the D3s excels above the D3x in every criteria except at ISO 100, which is where the D3x achieved its score. If you were to fairly compare the maximum quality output of cameras against any other you would either do that at the sensor level or at the same downsample ratio. How about a comparison of the D800 downsampled to 8mp, against the D3s downsampled to 3mp - that would be a fair comparison of output given that there are certainly just as many quarter page magazine prints (3mp) as there are 8x12 paper prints (8mp) being used in the industry..

In order to see the real performance you have to select the little toggle in the upper left of the measurement page labeled [Screen] where you will then see what the performance is at the sensor level. You may be asking why this is important, I mean some would be saying 'the camera I want just got the highest score ever, that is good enough for me' but as is to be expected a considerable percentage of buyers (those without real photography experience or knowledge of composition, lens selection, exposure, aperture, etc) will be looking to crop into all those megapixels hoping to get the image they should have captured correctly to begin with - and that is where the performance is the worst, at the pixel level, or the closer you get to the pixel level. If you compare the performance of the D800 against any Nikon above, say the D80 or so, you will see that its performance at full resolution is no better than most of Nikon's lower megapixel models - and actually begins trailing behind most of them once you get past ~200 ISO.

The relevance of the score has more to do with your intended/needed output. For studio work the D800 should be great as most of those images are headed toward magazine and smaller prints (where the downsample will provide benefit, either digitally or in print) however the other group Nikon has marketed the D800 towards, Landscape photography, will not see the performance they have paid for as their output is typically larger prints needing higher megapixels to yield the extra detail - the area where the D800 performs no better than most of Nikon's bodies other than megapixels. As for walk-around/general photography, like you do with a D700, the D800 is not for that group. Not that it cannot take general subject photographs, but how many of you in that group are looking to incorporate professional level post processing, lenses, and additional overhead all that comes with just to yield the results you are already getting from whatever you already use? Remember too not to be mislead by marketing, you do not need high megapixels to upscale an image.. Upscaling an image allows more pixels to draw the same detail present, which means any additional refining of the detail needed can literally be added in the process, this should always provide a benefit no matter what camera or megapixels you have (up to a percentage of the original of course). If you are losing detail when upscaling your print you need to look at a different software package, and of course make sure you have done everything you can to capture the detail to begin with.

Re: D800's DX crop mode

Hm hm..

I admit it looks impressive, but metamerism index of 78/75 really isnt much impressive. For what is good 25 bit depth when colors are "off" right from sensor? ICC profiling probably can help, but if you ever saw difference between color profiled 5DMK2 and 1DsMK3, you will know it cant save it.

In theory it could be best studio 35mm camera, in practise it will be still Sony A900. And most likely A99, cause Sony is using superior CFA on pretty much everything except very low end models.

Considering "improved" noise performance of 5DMK3, I doubt it will be much better in this deparment, but they can suprise as samples from 5DMK3 seemed quite promising and very "non-Canon" like. Unlike D800 studio ones where skin looks mostly bit wierd..

Re: February 9th

D800 Review Quibble

You state that the D800 will do 6 fps with the addition of the grip, but you should correct that to state that the 6 fps is available with the grip and ONLY in DX format, that is, the 15 megapixel crop of the full frame.

Its not the MP count... its other things that make a good camera

I read today that Nokia are releasing a 41MP phone - so already the D800 is losing out to a smartphone ;) Seriously though it takes more than MP count to make a good camera - and what will be interesting is the dynamic range and high ISO abilities - of both the D800 and Nokias new wonder phone. I'd personally like to see the D4 sensor in an ultraportable trimmed down DSLR - a sortof Nikon FE for the digital era.

EOS 5D Mk2

Totally ignoring anything other than the thumbnails of the two cameras here but it really bugs me that after more than 3 years on the market the image of the EOS 5D mk2 is quite clearly a doctored one of the original 5D. This shot first circulated when people we wondering what the Mk2 would actually be. This site should be a little more organised and professional that this and it staggers me that no one has picked this up!!

Questionable bias...

I regularly visit DxOMark for statistical data before seeking my next lens or considering a new body. (No - the equipment does not make or break your images, but while you can technically cut a steak with spoon it is much easier, faster, and precise with a sharp finely honed blade..)

What I am unfortunately seeing in some of your verbal assessments of late is the comparisons seem 'fanboyish'. When the 'older equipment' information is presented like an obituary and the newer equipment reads like the front page of a tabloid you could hardly consider that an unbiased 3rd party perspective. Specifically the comparison of the 5DmkII.

Before anyone starts thinking 'Canon fanboy rant!' I own both Canon and Nikon equipment. Through inheritance, adoption, or simply hooking up with a spouse that prefers another brand I have ended up with two Canon bodies (60D/5DmkII) and two Nikon bodies (D300s/D700) not to mention a healthy amount of glass for each. My gripe is simply when I see comments and comparisons made with verbiage designed to imply superiority over another even when the differences are slight or nonexistent.

In this comparison it is obvious that someone at DxO prefers Nikon in this context, and even the simple listing of data shows it. O.o

In this 'paper' comparison it would have been nice to have relevant information added and/or embellished:

The images produced by the 5DmkII and its 'lowly' 21mp are superb, there is no sharpness lacking that cannot be achieved with better glass (certainly something that will be a major factor with the 36mp sensor of the D800). So to automatically hypothesize that the D800 sensor will meet expectations or be superior because it has more pixels is absurd, especially as you have not even tested the D800 yet.

You at least described the ISO range evenly without adding or leaving out relevant data to favor one or the other.

AF - Lets be honest, you do not need any more than one AF point and place it over the subject you want to be in focus. Quality images rely more on composition than focus. While the 5DmkII appears to be lacking in number you do not include the same description of its components. Artificially emphasizing some inferiority of the 5DmkII by stating no more than the number of its points even though there is relevant data for its AF mechanism and that all points are cross type - and that there are additional 'hidden' points that assist in the evaluative focus and tracking. I will certainly give kudos to Nikon though for their servo tracking mode, it is indeed superior to Canon across all models. I enjoy it a great deal on my D300s and D700 when shooting wildlife, especially birds. Though to be fair in handing out praise I have to say that my two Canon bodies, and all the way down the Rebel line I have used, all appear to focus faster on average. So even though they may have less focus points in each tier something is working more effectively.

Metering? Nothing more than two different ways to get to the same point. I have never encountered a metering issue that could not be adjusted where it needs to be, and have had to make adjustments for both brands. Not sure about the scene recognition and its role in face detection AF, played with it on a lower Nikon model without any lasting impression.

If you wish to make any comparisons for video capabilities please at least mention where they differ! Both bodies do full HD video, have the same frame rates at 1080p, and with the same input/output options sans the raw HDMI output (though available on the 5DmkII with Magic Lantern.) The main differences are the cropped modes (magnification) offered by the D800, and 60fps at 720p - versus the full manual exposure control provided by canon. Whether trading either of these features for the other will make you go with one over the other can only be determined by the user.

Yes the viewfinder is larger on the D800 (100% vs 98%), but does it really make any difference to the image that one has a tiny bit smaller view? No it does not. Now if one were larger than the actual capture area, and you ended up cropping off parts of the scene you thought you were getting, that would be an issue! At this level you are doing post processing 95% of the time anyway, if you got something in the shot around the border on the 5DmkII you did not want just clip it off... Both are big and bright and display relevant shooting data. The 5DmkII allows you to change out the focus screens for specialized needs. -moot

They both have the same display, why you felt the need to add viewing angle for one and not the other just reads like one is inferior. Not only are they the same, but Canon has been offering that lcd for longer and across more models than Nikon. Not to mention that Canon's display does not pixelate when zooming into the last two or three magnifications like Nikon. (hopefully they have changed that in the D800)

The frame rate is identical for any practical measurement for the exception that the frame rate does not increase on the D800 with the addition of any other accessories, it increases when shooting in DX cropped mode.

I will give the point to Nikon for the flash. I know many people who say a pop up flash does not belong on a pro body. All I can tell you is that I use it often on my D700 for a little fill in the field and wish my 5DmkII had one.

Both have external flash sync. Not sure what you are describing as if it were any different. (wireless commander mode maybe?)

Weight - Canon is lighter, both have magnesium bodies.

Battery life - About the same at this level from any manufacturer. (Though Sony would be the only other manufacturer of a 'compact' body FF, and no longer considered in this tier as it does not offer video.)

If you are going to even mention price, Canon is the winner. Outstanding image quality and broadcast video for ~$800 less currently. If more mp, more post processing, pop up flash, and digital video zoom are worth ~$800 then by all means get the Nikon.

Weather sealing - You do not mention anything about the 5DmkII as if it does not have any environmental sealing, which it certainly does. Can we please let this issue go already..? The number of equipment review sites that incorrectly imply there was no additional sealing or body improvements from the original 5D is staggering, and just emphasizes the lack of experience and knowledge the reviewer has with the product being reviewed. I have had all four of my cameras out in the rain, crawling through dew soaked grass, spilled drinks on/around them, been splashed around the pool, lake, beach, etc and never had an issue with any of the higher end bodies from Nikon or Canon. None of them are waterproof, they all have some level of sealing, all things being considered the only thing you need to be overly concerned with is your lenses.

Re: Questionable bias...

Re: Questionable bias...

There's several review conclusions that have me scratching my head. Following the numbers going by the data leads me to for example say two lenses are fairly evenly matched yet one has a very vigorous and enthusiastic review while the other average. Perhaps there's something I'm overlooking.

Re: Questionable bias...

Is D7000 overkill?

<div id="linkdxomark">This a comment for <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Nikon/D800">this page on the website</a></div>D800 have the same pixel density as D7000. I dont think thats overkill. D800 will just offer wider images at the same pixel density with the same optics. Safari photographers would not need a D7000 backup camera to get closter to the subject compared to using the D700.

I guess the D800 will offer significantly less ISO noise (amount) then the D700, when comparing prints and full screen images on screen. In addition to less amount of noise the noise will be more fine grained and problably look smoother in prints and full screen viewing. Think fine sand vs coarse sand.

If you dont like the improved crop capabilities, try pixel binning 2*2 pixels with D800E. Despite lower pixel count i think i could be sharper then D700 images due to no AA filter. High ISO would probably be a lot better then the D700.

Large files are a backdraw that impacts speed, storage capasity and probably battery capasity in #pictures. You just have to be more patient both when shooting, transfering and editing images. About 50% more patient compared to D3x, and 3 times more compared to D700.

DR are probably better then both D7000 and D3x. That could mean a new over all high score.

Btw. How is the formula to calculate the overall score from the sub scores?

Nikon D800

<div id="linkdxomark">This a comment for <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Nikon/D800">this page on the website</a></div>When you test it, I think we'll see a DxOMark new high score, and world's best dynamic range and fantastic low light ISO scores.

Overkill of MP

Beautiful camera, but for me personally the 36MP seems a bit of an overkill. But may be we have to think out of the box and is 36MP in a few years standard?? I assume many people have to buy a new computer as well ;-)

Like you stated in your article, I am very curious about the performance and image quality of this camera. We'll have to wait until March :) ...

Good luck with the testing and thank you so much in advance for your appreciated work!